Kashmir and Azadi : A Media Hype

*Kashmir’s Azadi talk — a lesson in how to destroy the idea of India.* We heard this in 2008. And we are hearing this again now. India should give up Kashmir because Kashmiris don’t want to stay with India. They want Azadi. But how are you so sure? Look at your TV screens and you’ll have the answer. But if I were to look at TV screens and seek answers, then I’d be forced to believe that Rahul Mahajan and Rakhi Sawant are the Father of the Nation and the Mother of the Nation. I know we don’t have a Mother of the Nation yet, so we will perhaps settle for Rakhi Sawant as Mother Teresa then. Of course, not to forget the impression that Arnab Goswami is India’s foremost intellectual, far ahead of Pratap Bhanu Mehta. But we have digressed. So some emotional anchors on our TV screens, supported by selective footage, conclusively prove that Kashmiris don’t want to stay in India. This obviously means that they should thus be allowed to go. Let us leave the bit about where they should go to and return to the topic of Kashmir. Firstly, the state is not Kashmir, but Jammu & Kashmir and unlike Jharkhand or Uttaranchal, it wasn’t created in the twenty-first century. Its geographical boundaries have been in existence for over 150 years before Pakistani army and its proxies, the tribal raiders destroyed the geographical sanctity of the state in 1948. Of course, Pakistan ceded a portion of the state to China in 1963 and seems to be in the process of following up by handing over Gilgit-Baltistan, or some portions of it, to its all-weather friend China now. Now, I can’t resist but have a dig at an all-weather friend ditching Pakistan at the first spell of bad weather. Clearly a fair-weather friend China is. But then the colour of the cat doesn’t matter as long as it catches the mice or as long as it can pin down the elephant so that the dragon can strut on the world stage. Damn, we again digress. So the state is Jammu & Kashmir, not Kashmir. We have had very successful elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 2008 and 2009, which overwhelmingly reflects the confidence of the residents of that state in the Indian Republic. But what about the Kashmiris? They want their way out. Great. What is the smallest unit that can decide that it wants its way out of the Indian Republic — a nation, a state, a district, a village, a family or an individual. Can the city of Sopore or the Hyderpora colony in Srinagar decide that it doesn’t want to be part of India and declare independence? If there is a case for Sopore or Hyderpora, then why not a case for South Mumbai. It even has access to a sea port and has the financial muscle to survive as an independent nation. Forget it though, these guys from South Mumbai don’t even come out to vote in the elections. So the question of parents in South Mumbai hiding behind their 8 and 9 year olds to throw stones at cops doesn’t even arise. Forget the idea. But we have digressed again. This is the contradiction that no one wishes to answer. Sopore may vote overwhelmingly for Azadi, Kashmir division may be equally divided on it while Jammu and Kashmir may be overwhelmingly against it. How do you decide the issue then? Taking it logically — even if it sounds counter-intuitive — the smallest unit that can then decide whether any part of the country can stay in the country or not is the country itself. Now that doesn’t sound fair to a few people, like the stone-pelting protestors of Kashmir. But it is fair to a larger group of people that form the unitary political entity called India — the Indians. That is what nations are about. It is a part of the social and political contract that the nation has with its people. Only Indians can thus decide in a plebiscite whether J&K or for that matter, Kerala should stay in the country or not. Look at it in another way. Sopore and Srinagar want Azadi with the Shariah law imposed there. Logically, we are a democracy and we should accept it because a majority wants it. Now let us go to Pilibhit and it says, hypothetically, that let us cut the hands of all Muslims residing in Pilibhit. After all, Mr Varun Gandhi won from that constituency by over 4.5 lac votes by reportedly invoking some of those images. Will we accept that? No, of course, we won’t. And we shouldn’t. Why? Because India is not merely a democracy, but a democratic republic. Even if a majority decides something (and even if the parliament approves it), it can be shot down by the court if it is unconstitutional. Indian democracy is not simple majoritianism. It is also a republic which is circumscribed by certain inviolable principles enshrined in the Indian constitution. What does the Constitution of India say about secularism? And what does the separatist Kashmiri leadership say about role of religion in Kashmir? Because most of our star-journalists develop partial amnesia when talking about the fundamentalist-religious angle of the separatist movement in Kashmir, it is necessary to remind them that the separatist movement is underpinned by communal principles which violate the fundamentals of Indian nationhood. If India is willing to make compromises with one shade of communalists, it would then be willing to do so with others of the same shade — the Bajrang Dal and the Ram Sene types, leave alone the likes of Varun Gandhi and Narendra Modi who have won popular elections with dubious messages. Where does it leave the idea of India then? If you care for the idea of India, ponder for a moment before peddling this notion about Kashmir and Azadi. India exists because of the idea of India. Let us not destroy it, inadvertently or otherwise.